Rationality versus religion

[Skeptical]

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity. If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

 

[birch]

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

people's belief in god is usually an issue of association. they are defining their existence tied to a god. to deny god is to deny their existence.

all their drives and emotions are predicated on a god. they are trying to understand what the source of it all is, since they can't definitely answer it, they tell themselves it's 'god' because being unsure makes them even more confused.

what makes us want for life and preserve it is so powerful that they wonder where it came from. this part is understandable.

the disconnect comes from their interpretation of the universe which doesn't necessarily coincide with their desire or needs but think it does. they start painting the universe as if it's some haven that god created for life. lol

 

[JuNie]

Religion stems from misunderstanding; not being able to understand the world around us. Religion is unable to accept new information, information that contradicts a belief system. Religion stems from fear.
Rationality stems from understanding or wanting to understand; learning about the world around us in detail. Rationality allows us to accept new information, study it, and learn from it. Rationality is the ability to change our current understanding of the world when new evidence is presented. Rationality is the overcoming of fear.

 

[Skeptical]

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

 

[AlexG]

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

Yes. It just needs a suspension of disbelief. It's the same as reading any fiction.

 

[Lori_7]

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity. If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

it happened to me. the deity "cooperated with me". :shrug:

 

[Skeptical]

What is your miraculous power, Lori?

 

[Lori_7]

What is your miraculous power, Lori?

i'm invincible.

 

[SnakeLord]

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).

2. I don't see that such issue would be of any genuine concern. You would likely say that you are "total atheist" with regards to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc whilst being in the same position of "not being able to prove a negative". You cannot "prove" Santa does not exist, (for what it's worth, you cannot "prove" anything) - but evidence, logic and argument can show it as so seriously unlikely that for all intents and purposes, it's virtually nil.

3. An inability to "prove" does not mean we are forever to be labelled as 'agnostic' or that such label is even accurate to begin with. It is important to note that 'agnostic' addresses epistemological matters whereas 'atheist' address ontological ones. They are two different things, not mutually exclusive - indeed most atheists are agnostic as are some theists.

Regards,

 

[Adstar]

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

What if God was adamant that He did not want to be proven by miracles? What is God designed an astounding Message that He designed to attract people to Him, So that they would believe He existed and at the same time the Message would cause them to trust in Him.

That would be a great block to people like you wouldn't it. Especially if you disagreed with the Message.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[gmilam]

The word "atheist" apparently means different things to different people. Probably because the word god means different things to different people. But why get hung up on the word? If you don't believe, then you don't believe. :shrug:

 

[Lori_7]

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).

2. I don't see that such issue would be of any genuine concern. You would likely say that you are "total atheist" with regards to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc whilst being in the same position of "not being able to prove a negative". You cannot "prove" Santa does not exist, (for what it's worth, you cannot "prove" anything) - but evidence, logic and argument can show it as so seriously unlikely that for all intents and purposes, it's virtually nil.

3. An inability to "prove" does not mean we are forever to be labelled as 'agnostic' or that such label is even accurate to begin with. It is important to note that 'agnostic' addresses epistemological matters whereas 'atheist' address ontological ones. They are two different things, not mutually exclusive - indeed most atheists are agnostic as are some theists.

Regards,

there's no mention here of selectively ignoring or unjustifiably discounting a lot of evidence. imo, there's enough evidence out there to make atheism an unsound opinion or belief. as with many other beliefs, because it has already been established and vested, and in this case very emotionally vested, any contradictory evidence is certainly not sought after, and if presented as such, is automatically and arbitrarily ignored and/or dismissed.

 

[birch]

make atheism an unsound opinion or belief. as with many other beliefs

for the billionth freaking time, it's not a belief. it's not recognizing something because there is no evidence.

it has been explained over and over and over and over and over again that atheism is not a belief.

there's enough evidence out there

this is all you can say because you are either lazy or you know what you will list is not evidence.

again, why do you care if people believe in god since everyone is subject to the laws of nature/universe that this supposed god created? does god need it's ego stroked or something? is that what you are on about?

 

[SnakeLord]

there's no mention here of selectively ignoring or unjustifiably discounting a lot of evidence

I see no valid reason to accuse the thread starter of doing any such thing and nor would such accusation really be relevant here. Of course if you think there is just cause to make such accusation, evidence will be demanded.

imo, there's enough evidence out there to make atheism an unsound opinion or belief

I suppose you and I can go back and forth with this all week long, but as a worldview, atheism works whereas theisms make a mockery of reality.

because it has already been established and vested, and in this case very emotionally vested, any contradictory evidence is certainly not sought after, and if presented as such, is automatically and arbitrarily ignored and/or dismissed

Confirmation bias is quite common, yes (not just with atheists as you seem to imply but with humans in general). In this particular example though, all we have are some wishy washy, vague, ill-defined notions such as 'spirits', 'souls', 'supernatural', 'immaterial beings' and ludicrous fictions, Adam and Eve, men living inside whales, gods impregnating earthlings with themselves, zombies walking around Jerusalem.

There's very little to work with and it changes from one person to the next. There is no consistency, just statements to reality and the agreement that such things cannot be tested, falsified, make no predictions and so on.

Arguments that theism has are not about 'evidence', unless we use the term so loosely as to render it moot, but primarily arguments from ignorance/god of the gaps. In no instance has theism led to so much as one piece of established world knowledge and nor could it seemingly ever do so. Of what worth then is it?

You seem to think that there is actual evidence. I therefore encourage you to present it.

 

[Skeptical]

IMHO rationality includes basing belief systems on the kind of evidence that would be accepted as good science. In other words, the evidence has to be empirical, and derived by objective means. It should be such as to allow repeated testing. It should exclude anything subjective.

So what evidence is there, of that nature, to convince an agnostic like me?

 

[Yazata]

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism.

I guess that I'd say that I'm agnostic with regards to transcendental realities and ultimate principles. But I'm effectively an atheist when it comes to whether or not I believe in the traditional deities worshipped by the world's religions. In other words, I don't have a clue what the ultimate explanation for being itself is. I can't tell you why there'ssomething rather than nothing. But equally, I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian Yahweh (or the Hindu Vishnu or whatever) isn't the solution. (Except for being a rather misleading symbolic personification of the mystery.)

The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

Maybe the ultimate being, principle or source (if any) doesn't care what you and I think. Maybe it isn't a human-style personality and doesn't want anything at all. Perhaps the universe's ultimate basis is like the sun or something, the source out of which all the rest of phenomenal reality emanates. (Ancient Neoplatonism had beliefs like that.)

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Technically, I don't think that's true. I can prove that there aren't any socks in my drawer by opening the drawer and determining that none of the drawer's contents are socks.

But I agree with the larger point you are making.

Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity.

In my opinion the problem with deities is that they supposedly exist outside the natural universe and exceed human knowing. So it's hard to understand how human beings could ever know that they had truly encountered a god. Even an absolutely amazing inexplicable event would just be a manifestation of the unknown, and everything that's unknown isn't necessarily divine. (Imagine a helicopter hovering above a remote stone-age tribal village that had no knowledge of the outside world.)

If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

Yes.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

I think that religion and I would agree that we are confronted with a real mystery, the ultimate mystery in fact. But at the same time, I don't think that any of the traditional 'revealed' solutions are remotely credible or justified by available evidence.

Theravada Buddhism might be closest in my opinion, mainly because it's more psychology than ontology and doesn't really speculate very much about ultimate being. It's more about how human beings react to any sort of experience. Advaita Vedanta is interesting as well, as are all the apophatic negative-theologies that celebrate the non-cognitivity of transcendental realities.

 

[SnakeLord]

Theravada Buddhism might be closest in my opinion, mainly because it's more psychology than ontology and doesn't really speculate very much about ultimate being. It's more about how human beings react to any sort of experience

I would encourage neurology and related sciences.

 

[IchBin]

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

There are many scientists who are religious and somewhere on the border between religion and science both break down. I have come to understand that the reason a person is religious has nothing to do with rationality and arguing with him on rational grounds isn't going to get you anywhere. Religion has enormous logical gaps, something with which even a religious person can't argue (he can try, by quoting the bible or saying "because God said so"). People are religious because of the very successful propaganda of religion. Even a man like Isaac Newton couldn't wall himself off from religious propaganda with rationality.
In my opinion, a person is religious because one of three things:
- 95% of religious people - because they were raised in a religious environment (brainwashing with religious propaganda).
- 4% - Something too good to be true happened to them and they feel strong gratitude, which must be directed at someone or something, so the emotions outweigh reason and they give in. This usually goes with some sort of brainwashing earlier in life, so as to hint them who this gratitude should be directed at once there is enough of it.
- 1% - Boredom, trying new things, again, these people couldn't possibly become religious unless they heard about religion somewhere before.
These are just crude estimates, based on the religious people I've met in life and their reasons.

My point is, with proper brainwashing you can convince a duck that it's a cat, regardless of whether the duck is the most rational duck in its village.

 

[Lori_7]

for the billionth freaking time, it's not a belief. it's not recognizing something because there is no evidence.

it has been explained over and over and over and over and over again that atheism is not a belief.

if it makes you feel better to say that then go right ahead. *pat pat on the head*

at least theists have an assload of evidence to base their beliefs on. you guys admittedly have none!

this is all you can say because you are either lazy or you know what you will list is not evidence.

again, why do you care if people believe in god since everyone is subject to the laws of nature/universe that this supposed god created? does god need it's ego stroked or something? is that what you are on about?

me lazy? you would have to purposely avoid, if not run from, the abundance of evidence of spiritual phenomenon. it's your problem if you want to discount any and everything you've never personally experienced yourself as horseshit; it's not.

 

[birch]

you would have to purposely avoid, if not run from, the abundance of evidence of spiritual phenomenon.

first of all, no one can run from spiritual phenomenon. secondly, "spiritual" is a word for something that can't be understood, but experienced. thirdly, it's not evidence of a god. that's a leap of association you are making.

also, what is the most glaring is if you and others like you believe so much, why do you try to convince others by getting others to validate your beliefs?

religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do
because they are unsure themselves.

at least theists have an assload of evidence to base their beliefs on. you guys admittedly have none!

repeat(the real deal): religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do because they are unsure themselves.